The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..27~28~29 [Next]
Salguod Nairb
View Profile

Room 101
0 Posts

Profile of Salguod Nairb
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, slowkneenuh wrote:
I'm not suggesting we randomly pick and average American, but there are many qualified people who do not have the money, connections or time to pursue a political career and could do an admirable job given the opportunity as opposed to the more fortunate ones who seem bent on squandering the opportunity.



Who is John Galt?
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness...
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Okay- Let me bring this all together:

Fifty members of Congress, some of whom are lawyers, have called upon the Redskins to change their name because it's offensive. The Redskins refused,but the players did offer their support to the demonstrators in Ferguson, which, in turn, offended many of those who weren't the least bit offended by the team name.Smile
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Okay- Let me bring this all together:

Fifty members of Congress, some of whom are lawyers, have called upon the Redskins to change their name because it's offensive. The Redskins refused,but the players did offer their support to the demonstrators in Ferguson, which, in turn, offended many of those who weren't the least bit offended by the team name.Smile

And the guilty are still entitled to legal representation.

(Even though lawyers charge too much.)

(And congressmen are incompetent.)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, slowkneenuh wrote:
"To me, it's pretty obvious that it's a good thing to have people of above-average capability in Congress."



We do. If you think they would be better replaced (in terms of capability) by a cross section of random average Americans - average in terms of intelligence, education, etc. - you're deluding yourself.

Disagree strongly. With access to staff to insure the proper legal niceties are followed, I think the decisions would be much more representative of the people's will, which, if I recall correctly, was the whole point of the experiment.


Whether their decisions would be more representative of the people's will is a separate issue from their capability. As a former journalist, I've city governments run by people with a wide variety of professions, from bankers and attorneys to hairdressers and photographers. From personal experience, I'll stick to my elitist position that the issues at the municipal level - let alone the national level - are generally simply too complex at the micro level for people who aren't too bright or educated. I've seen swing votes on multiple-million dollar budgets, firings - things that affected people's lives in profound ways - made by people who clearly did not grasp fundamental and salient points of the issue in question.

I didn't realize that the position that intelligence and education are desirable qualities in elected officials was so controversial. I think you guys have been watching "Being There" too often.

With respect to "much more representative," it's worth noting that we (as individuals) are not supposed to be represented by Congress as a whole; we're supposed to be represented by those particular Congress members from our districts and states. And while Congress as a whole is extremely unpopular, individual Congress members are generally fairly popular among their constituents.

Of course, there are things beside education and intelligence. If you have a single political issue that is hugely important to you, like abortion or war in the Middle East, then maybe you'd rather have an unintelligent representative who agrees with you than an intelligent one who doesn't.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Landmark-If that was the point of the "whole experiment" why didn't it apply to the Founding Fathers themselves? Nearly all highly educated landowners, they were hardly representative of the general population of the colonies, most of whom were barely literate.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Okay- Let me bring this all together:

Fifty members of Congress, some of whom are lawyers, have called upon the Redskins to change their name because it's offensive. The Redskins refused,but the players did offer their support to the demonstrators in Ferguson, which, in turn, offended many of those who weren't the least bit offended by the team name.Smile

And the guilty are still entitled to legal representation.

(Even though lawyers charge too much.)

(And congressmen are incompetent.)




I think that about covers it.
General_Magician
View Profile
Special user
United States
707 Posts

Profile of General_Magician
Quote:
(Even though lawyers charge too much.)

(And congressmen are incompetent.)


Have you paid legal fees before? Legal fees have even put millionaires into the poor house. Never under-estimate the cost of a lawyer or the courtroom today. Lawyers and courtrooms have put many a business out of business with crippling legal fees and damages awarded and put many rich millionaires into the poor house. It would also be a bit niave to think that lawyers and lawyers who are Congressman do not rig the law or use their control on the number of people who can be lawyers to control what lawyers are paid on an hourly basis and to ensure that people will have to go and hire their services or risk being sued later on for much more for not doing so. If we were to go back to the days when people merely apprenticed with an attorney to be an attorney, lawyers would cost much less and this would work against the best financial interests of lawyers. I know one person who worked with business lawyers stated that their attitude was a "pay me now or pay me later." I think the business lawyers know what they are talking about when they say "pay me now or pay me later." It's a "me" world we live in and it would be niave to think otherwise.

I think you will also find that the majority of the American people don't view Congress as competent. That's no accident. The American people are not stupid. Congress is not competent at all, rather they serve themselves rather than the people. Everybody knows this. The corrupting influence of money on Congress has also helped to make Congress incompetent and dysfunctional. I mean, you don't really think that Congress is not dysfunctional do you? I wouldn't put it past our dysfunctional Congress to default on our National debt either. Playing chicken with our credit was incompetent and the credit rating we receieved was well deserved. You just don't even think of playing chicken with your credit when you are competent with your finances. That's your good name you are playing chicken with when it comes to repaying what you owe and you just don't do that. Your reputation is worth more than what money can buy. It's priceless.
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean there is a light shining somewhere nearby." -unknown

Company Website
Facebook Business Page
Twitter Business Page
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Rockwall-

Where did I say I was "proud of the fact" that I never defended someone I knew to be guilty? Reread what I wrote, for you've misquoted me:

"Personally, I never defended, at trial, a person I knew to be guilty..." [emphasis added for clarity] Of course I represented clients who were guilty but I never took those cases to trial. Instead I negotiated reasonable sentences and/or argued for same in court. Because, like I said, EVERYONE is entitled to representation.


For someone who likes to ask people if they even "read the post", you obviously didn't read mine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that I said that YOU said that you were "proud of the fact".

Comprehension is key, Bob.

I didn't say that you said it but I did explain why you gave the "impression" that you felt that way.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Quote:
(Even though lawyers charge too much.)

(And congressmen are incompetent.)


Have you paid legal fees before?

Yes.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Legal fees have even put millionaires into the poor house.

As have medical expenses.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Never under-estimate the cost of a lawyer or the courtroom today. Lawyers and courtrooms have put many a business out of business with crippling legal fees and damages awarded and put many rich millionaires into the poor house.

Are we talking about legal fees, or jury awards? Two completely different things. Lawyers are not responsible for large settlements; blame the juries (you know: the peers of the defendants, representative of society as a whole). Try to focus on one idea here, please.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
It would also be a bit niave to think that lawyers and lawyers who are Congressman do not rig the law or use their control on the number of people who can be lawyers to control what lawyers are paid on an hourly basis and to ensure that people will have to go and hire their services or risk being sued later on for much more for not doing so.

Congress doesn’t control the fees that lawyers charge, any more than they control what doctors, architects, risk management consultants, magicians, or professional baseball players charge. You’re completely off-base here.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
If we were to go back to the days when people merely apprenticed with an attorney to be an attorney, lawyers would cost much less and this would work against the best financial interests of lawyers.

Why would they cost much less? I don’t see the causal connection on which you’re leaning so heavily.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
I know one person who worked with business lawyers stated that their attitude was a "pay me now or pay me later." I think the business lawyers know what they are talking about when they say "pay me now or pay me later." It's a "me" world we live in and it would be niave to think otherwise.

Doctors say the same thing. So do plumbers and air conditioning repairmen. What’s your point?

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
I think you will also find that the majority of the American people don't view Congress as competent. That's no accident. The American people are not stupid.

I think that you will also find that the majority of American people don’t fully stop at stop signs. A majority of people doing something doesn’t remotely mean that it’s right.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
The American people are not stupid.

Some are. And many are ignorant. And a lot more are complacent. Therein lies the problem.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Congress is not competent at all, rather they serve themselves rather than the people. Everybody knows this.

The fact that they serve themselves rather than their constituents is not a matter of competence; indeed, if they serve themselves well, that’s a sign that they are competent. The fact that they serve themselves rather than their constituents is the classic principle-agent problem; don’t confuse that with incompetence.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Everybody knows this.

But not everybody draws the correct inferences from it.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
The corrupting influence of money on Congress has also helped to make Congress incompetent and dysfunctional. I mean, you don't really think that Congress is not dysfunctional do you?

I think that congress is dysfunctional, but not because of the corrupting influence of money.

And it’s a lot less dysfunctional than it’s been historically.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
I wouldn't put it past our dysfunctional Congress to default on our National debt either.

Then I submit that you’re the one who’s naïve. How would that serve their interests?

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Playing chicken with our credit was incompetent and the credit rating we receieved was well deserved.

It wasn’t incompetent; it was grandstanding, brinksmanship, politics. Everyone in Congress knew that at the eleventh hour they were going to raise the debt ceiling; that was never an issue.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
You just don't even think of playing chicken with your credit when you are competent with your finances. That's your good name you are playing chicken with when it comes to repaying what you owe and you just don't do that. Your reputation is worth more than what money can buy. It's priceless.

OK.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20992 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Nobody played chicken with anything. Please research more than media postsb as to how this stuff works. They would never have defaulted. It is literally impossible to have a meaningful discussion general unless you . Look beyond what you are spoon fed.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Every time I come back to this thread it appears to have fallen farther down the rabbit hole.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Re: US default threat of 2013.

The banks took it seriously:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1......20131119
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
General_Magician
View Profile
Special user
United States
707 Posts

Profile of General_Magician
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, balducci wrote:
Re: US default threat of 2013.

The banks took it seriously:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1......20131119


Absolutely they did.



And addressing somebody else besides balducci:

S2000,

I see your point with doctors and maybe a possibility with lawyers. I am certainly glad I went to the doctor now rather than later. I will pay much less now for going to the doctor than I would if I waited till later and required surgery (but in my case, this was a VA doctor and not a private doctor, still I think the VA doctor has done an excellent job). I've lost about 22 pounds now since I went to the doctor, the right and healthy way and the way that the doctored advised me to lose it and it certainly has improved my health and will help to prevent a whole host of health problems and very expensive health costs later on. My main problem was I simply didn't know or understand the smart and healthy way to lose weight. Thankfully I got a good doctor who showed me the way. So, maybe you are on to something here S2000.
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean there is a light shining somewhere nearby." -unknown

Company Website
Facebook Business Page
Twitter Business Page
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, balducci wrote:
Re: US default threat of 2013.

The banks took it seriously:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1......20131119

Banks are extremely risk averse; they earn their profit on generally small interest rate spreads, so they're keen to any slight change in interest rates.

That, in and of itself, isn't evidence that a default was likely, however. Or even possible.
General_Magician
View Profile
Special user
United States
707 Posts

Profile of General_Magician
As an investor, I certainly would take the threat of default seriously. I wouldn't sell my investment holdings, but I certainly would think twice before I bought any US Treasury bonds.
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean there is a light shining somewhere nearby." -unknown

Company Website
Facebook Business Page
Twitter Business Page
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
As an investor, I certainly would take the threat of default seriously. I wouldn't sell my investment holdings, but I certainly would think twice before I bought any US Treasury bonds.

Nobody's suggesting that you don't take it seriously.

What I'm suggesting (and Danny seems to agree) is that you don't assign to it a higher probability than it warranted. It appears that you did.
General_Magician
View Profile
Special user
United States
707 Posts

Profile of General_Magician
I disagree. We could have very well defaulted on our debt. There is a lot of dysfunctionality in Congress. I might be willing to eventually put 5% into Inflation Adjusted US Treasury Bonds so long as the US government keeps a good record of paying it's debt and bills and doesn't have anymore scares or threats of default like we had before. But the other 10% would go into REITs as part of a strategy to help hedge against inflation. However, if we continue to have scares like we had before, I will probably stick strictly with REITs as a hedge against inflation, even though not even REITs are foolproof against inflation.
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean there is a light shining somewhere nearby." -unknown

Company Website
Facebook Business Page
Twitter Business Page
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, balducci wrote:
Re: US default threat of 2013.

The banks took it seriously:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1......20131119

Banks are extremely risk averse; they earn their profit on generally small interest rate spreads, so they're keen to any slight change in interest rates.

That, in and of itself, isn't evidence that a default was likely, however. Or even possible.

The article indicates they were concerned about much more than a change in interest rates, though.

Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
As an investor, I certainly would take the threat of default seriously.

Nobody's suggesting that you don't take it seriously.

What I'm suggesting (and Danny seems to agree) is that you don't assign to it a higher probability than it warranted. It appears that you did.

Conversely, it seems to me that you (and perhaps Danny) are assigning it a far smaller probability than it warranted. Personally I am not expecting to see a default in the next 10 years, but I would not be surprised if the U.S. did default on at least a part of its debt. Even if only a technical short term default akin to that in 1979, due to some delay (e.g. caused by brinksmanship).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011......y-bills/
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Quote:
(Even though lawyers charge too much.)

(And congressmen are incompetent.)


Have you paid legal fees before? Legal fees have even put millionaires into the poor house. Never under-estimate the cost of a lawyer or the courtroom today. Lawyers and courtrooms have put many a business out of business with crippling legal fees and damages awarded and put many rich millionaires into the poor house. It would also be a bit niave to think that lawyers and lawyers who are Congressman do not rig the law or use their control on the number of people who can be lawyers to control what lawyers are paid on an hourly basis and to ensure that people will have to go and hire their services or risk being sued later on for much more for not doing so. If we were to go back to the days when people merely apprenticed with an attorney to be an attorney, lawyers would cost much less and this would work against the best financial interests of lawyers. I know one person who worked with business lawyers stated that their attitude was a "pay me now or pay me later." I think the business lawyers know what they are talking about when they say "pay me now or pay me later." It's a "me" world we live in and it would be niave to think otherwise.

I think you will also find that the majority of the American people don't view Congress as competent. That's no accident. The American people are not stupid. Congress is not competent at all, rather they serve themselves rather than the people. Everybody knows this. The corrupting influence of money on Congress has also helped to make Congress incompetent and dysfunctional. I mean, you don't really think that Congress is not dysfunctional do you? I wouldn't put it past our dysfunctional Congress to default on our National debt either. Playing chicken with our credit was incompetent and the credit rating we receieved was well deserved. You just don't even think of playing chicken with your credit when you are competent with your finances. That's your good name you are playing chicken with when it comes to repaying what you owe and you just don't do that. Your reputation is worth more than what money can buy. It's priceless.



Congress doesn't control what lawyers get paid any more than they control what magicians get paid.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
General_Magician
View Profile
Special user
United States
707 Posts

Profile of General_Magician
But many Congressmen are lawyers and can pass laws that could favor the pay of lawyers. Isn't their a conflict of interest when many Congressmen are lawyers? Also, what about the arguement that the labor market for lawyers is intentionally kept tight so that legal fees stay artifially high? Is this really unfounded? If not, why is not?
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean there is a light shining somewhere nearby." -unknown

Company Website
Facebook Business Page
Twitter Business Page
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..27~28~29 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL